logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2017.09.14 2016가단23178
공유물분할
Text

1. Aboard which connects each point of F. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 1 in the annexed reference sheet to the F. 9 m2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 1.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as well as the purport of the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiffs share 1/8 shares, the defendant shares 1/2 shares, and that there was no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the method of partition of the land in this case, and thus, the plaintiffs have the right to claim a partition of co-owned property as to the land in this case against the defendant based on their co-ownership.

2. The method of dividing the article jointly owned shall be, in principle, divided in kind, but the court may order the auction of the article concerned if it is impossible to divide the article in kind or if the value thereof is likely to decrease remarkably in kind;

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (the provisional number includes each number), and the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., ① there is no circumstance to deem that the use of the land specifically divided by dividing the land in kind would be impeded or that the value of the land would be significantly decreased due to the fact that the defendant's in-kind division of the land in this case is difficult to carry out real estate development projects, and ② the defendant claims in-kind division of the land in this case, or the defendant claims in-kind division of the land in this case as the company carrying out real estate development projects, but it is difficult to view that the defendant's purchase of the share of the land in this case is favorable to the development project to secure the wide area of the land in addition to the neighboring land, and there is no agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and ③ there is no special or unreasonable circumstance to deem such division in-kind division in kind as claimed by the plaintiffs to be disadvantageous to the defendant.

arrow